Issue - meetings
Harley House and Campion House, Frances Wharf, London (PA/15/03433)
Meeting: 23/11/2016 - Development Committee (Item 4)
4 Harley House and Campion House, Frances Wharf, London (PA/15/03433) PDF 78 KB
Proposal:
Roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Additional documents:
Decision:
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 5 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 23 November 2016 and on vote of 5 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED at Harley House and Campion House, Frances Wharf, London for roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit (PA/15/03433) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report, dated 23 November 2016
Density
1. The proposed development by reason of its excessive density constitutes overdevelopment of the site, which is exhibited by the resulting inadequate access to sunlight and daylight for neighbouring residential properties. There is no exceptional circumstance to justify exceeding the advised density range for this development site. The development is contrary to the NPPF, policies 3.4 of the London Plan (MALP 2016), SP02 of the Core Strategy (2010) and the London Plan Housing SPG (2016).
Amenity
2. The proposed additional storeys at 7th and 9th floor levels, by reasons of their siting, form and mass would result in unacceptable sunlight and daylight failures to existing residential units and the construction of the development would result in an unacceptable level of noise, vibration and dust pollution for existing residents and building occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SP10 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM25 in the Managing Development Document (2013), along with the objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), which seek to ensure that development safeguards the amenity of surrounding existing and future residents and building occupants.
Incremental Development
3. The absence of a policy complaint affordable housing provision for this incremental development would fail to ensure the development contributes to the creation of socially balanced and inclusive communities. As a result the proposal is contrary to policy SP02 (3) which requires housing development to provide 35%-50% affordable housing on all sites providing a total of 10 or more residential units.
Design
4. The proposed additional storeys to the existing building at 7th and 9th floor levels, by reasons of its scale, bulk and appearance; and when considered in conjunction with the overall character of its immediate environs, would have a detrimental effect on the appearance and character of the surrounding area and the adjacent Limehouse Cut conservation area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SP10 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DM24 and DM27 in the Managing Development Document (2013), along with the objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), which seek to ensure that development is appropriate in terms of design, is sensitive to and enhances the local character and its setting, ... view the full decision text for item 4
Minutes:
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the application for roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit.
He reported that the application was previously considered at the 28 September 2016 meeting of the Committee where Members were minded to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the updated Committee report. Officers had since assessed the Committees reasons and had drafted detailed reasons for refusal as set out in the report.
Mr Buckenham summarised the suggested reasons. He also explained the reasons why Officers felt that the reason relating to incremental development could be sustained at appeal given the findings of a recent appeal case and the precedent set by this.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 5 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 23 November 2016 and on a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED at Harley House and Campion House, Frances Wharf, London for roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit (PA/15/03433) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report, dated 23 November 2016
Density
1. The proposed development by reason of its excessive density constitutes overdevelopment of the site, which is exhibited by the resulting inadequate access to sunlight and daylight for neighbouring residential properties. There is no exceptional circumstance to justify exceeding the advised density range for this development site. The development is contrary to the NPPF, policies 3.4 of the London Plan (MALP 2016), SP02 of the Core Strategy (2010) and the London Plan Housing SPG (2016).
Amenity
2. The proposed additional storeys at 7th and 9th floor levels, by reasons of their siting, form and mass would result in unacceptable sunlight and daylight failures to existing residential units and the construction of the development would result in an unacceptable level of noise, vibration and dust pollution for existing residents and building occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SP10 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM25 in the Managing Development Document (2013), along with the objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), which seek to ensure that development safeguards the amenity of surrounding existing and future residents and building occupants.
Incremental Development
3. The absence of a policy complaint affordable housing provision for this incremental development would fail to ensure the development contributes to the creation of socially balanced and inclusive communities. As a result the proposal is contrary to policy SP02 (3) which requires housing development to provide 35%-50% affordable housing on all ... view the full minutes text for item 4
Meeting: 28/09/2016 - Development Committee (Item 5)
5 Harley House and Campion House, Frances Wharf, London (PA/15/03433) PDF 2 MB
Proposal:
Roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Angus O’Callaghan and Laurence Coman spoke in opposition to the application. They were occupants of the existing building. They expressed concern that the proposal failed to respect the design of the existing building. Constructing apartments on top of an existing development was a very unusual concept. The proposal would also adversely affect the existing occupants amenity. They would see reductions in sunlight and daylight levels from the proposed balconies. The property most affected by the proposal had been excluded from the light assessment so it was inaccurate. There would also be loss of access to properties due to the planned works to the lift and the lack of an appropriate alternative. Occupants would also experience privacy issues and overlooking particularly from the new communal terrace. The plans would also put a strain on the existing buildings infrastructure and the density of the plans exceeded the London Plan density guidance so the plans would result in the overdevelopment of the site. The plans also conflicted with the LBTH policy in respect of roof extensions. The consultation carried out by the developer was inadequate.
In response the Members questions, they further discussed the perceived omissions from the sunlight and daylight report, the lack of consultation by the developer, the planning history of the site involving a number of different applications that had resulted in substantial changes to the building and a considerable amount of disruption.
Joel Ginn and Mr Hinsely spoke in support of the application. Whilst there was no requirement to provide affordable housing as part of the application, the applicant had offered to provide three one bed intermediate units. They explained the proposed changes to the lift, the steps that would be taken to minimise the disruption impact, the proposed construction methods and the length of time that the lift would be out of action for.
In response to questions, the speakers further explained the methods that would be used to minimise the disruption to residents, the anticipated time it would take to complete the works, that only small number of windows failed the sunlighting and daylighting test and that they were happy to look into the concerns about the ‘missing windows’ from the assessment.
Chris Stacey – Kinchin (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the application brought to the Committee due to the number of objections received in response to the consultation. He explained the site location, planning history resulting in the addition of units to the existing development. Due to the size of the application, it did not trigger the affordable housing policy, but the applicant had volunteered to provide intermediate housing. The plans involved the extension of the lift of both Harley and Campion House ... view the full minutes text for item 5